Should Student-Athletes be paid for their name, image & likeness while scholarships?

[Kung Wu]

I just skimmed the actual bill (Senate SB-206). The way I see it, the NCAA and NAIA have to terminate all members by end of 2022 if they want to maintain integrity and not have a big fight on their hands in California state courts. I think the NCAA and NAIA should publicly begin that process IMMEDIATELY if they want to stem the tide of other states following suit.

[abdullah_sharif]

I just skimmed the actual bill (Senate SB-206). The way I see it, the NCAA and NAIA have to terminate all members by end of 2022 if they want to maintain integrity and not have a big fight on their hands in California state courts. I think the NCAA and NAIA should publicly begin that process IMMEDIATELY if they want to stem the tide of other states following suit.

i interpreted it the same way too. for the ncaa and naia, the time to move on this is now.

[Kung Wu]

i interpreted it the same way too. for the ncaa and naia, the time to move on this is now.

Yeah, on the flip side, states wanting to do the same should also act as fast as possible. That makes it more difficult for the NCAA.

[wsushox1]

I suppose my question is:

-Would you rather the NCAA get ahead of this now, implement common sense name, image, likeness rules?
-Or large conferences, which may or may not include the American, breakaway from NCAA governance and create their own championships? One could argue certain brands are bigger than the NCAA.

Obviously option #2 would require tons of capital and someone to underwrite it, but theoretically, it could happen.

NIL, I suspect, is coming one way or another and I believe it would behoove the NCAA to get ahead of it.

[Kung Wu]

I suppose my question is:

-Would you rather the NCAA get ahead of this now, implement common sense name, image, likeness rules?
-Or large conferences, which may or may not include the American, breakaway from NCAA governance and create their own championships? One could argue certain brands are bigger than the NCAA.

Obviously option #2 would require tons of capital and someone to underwrite it, but theoretically, it could happen.

NIL, I suspect, is coming one way or another and I believe it would behoove the NCAA to get ahead of it.

It's too late for them to get ahead of it. They are already now leading from behind. Their hand is being forced.

[ShockTalk]

I suppose my question is:

-Would you rather the NCAA get ahead of this now, implement common sense name, image, likeness rules?
-Or large conferences, which may or may not include the American, breakaway from NCAA governance and create their own championships? One could argue certain brands are bigger than the NCAA.

Obviously option #2 would require tons of capital and someone to underwrite it, but theoretically, it could happen.

NIL, I suspect, is coming one way or another and I believe it would behoove the NCAA to get ahead of it.

Obviously, this would work well for football, but such a move (IMHO) would destroy college basketball and the Dance and probably college baseball as well. Of course, the real impact of all this is really only affecting football and men's basketball as far as big money is concerned.

The third party is the schools and they do not seem to be very receptive to it.

The NCAA should probably come up with a time table and assurances that they will devise a workable solution for all schools, but some time is needed to work through it and all potential ramifications to all schools, large and small, and ask that states requiring a starting date prior to that, move that starting date back. If such a commitment is agreed upon by the NCAA member schools, any state not pushing the date back will not have their schools participating until a final solution is agreed upon by the member schools.

[1972Shocker]

Washington State football coach Mike Leach not making any friends in California:

[ArtVandalay]

There are some BAD takes in this thread. More than usual on Shockernet. It's very apparent none of you played college athletics or can grasp what it's like to see your jersey and Christmas ornaments with your number being sold and you get zip out of it. And if you think a "free college education" is worth it ask the baseball players who don't get a free ride and still have their number and likeness used.


College athletes make a lot of money for this school, especially the basketball players, in terms of free national publicity when they're good. They deserve a cut of that. There's a reason why WSU has the biggest enrollment in history this year, and it's not the science department.

WSU and the NCAA made a lot of money for FVV, Baker, Shamet and all the others playing professionally internationally. WSU didn't force any of them to come here. They didn't have to go to college. Go pro internationally straight out of high school. They wanted to go to the NCAA, because without it and the TV exposure, none of them are making money professionally. None of them were in a position out of high school to get paid. So they went to college, got better, got exposure and got paid.

Sounds like what college is for (not just athletically). Athletes need the NCAA exposure. They get free education, meals and travel to go along with it. Don't like it, choose pro ball or AAU.

[Aargh]

So, when Adidas gets caught shelling out 6 figures to players, we just change the rules so they can pay a player $100,000 to use his likeness and name if he goes to one of the chosen few schools. This is a lot more complicated than just letting a player get a dime every time a shirt gets sold with his name and number on it. This would create a HUGE advantage for high-density population areas. More eyes and ears make the player's name and likeness a lot more valuable.

While it sounds like something good for the players, it would change the landscape of college basketball that it could destroy any comparisons to college games played before this happened.

I think it would need to be capped at an amount that would at least let more than a few schools compete. Otherwise it just becomes a bidding war for NBA minor league teams pretending to be D1 basketball teams.

[Kel Varnsen]

I often think of this quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers when I see people saying there is no downside to this:

"Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape?"

[RoyalShock]

So, when Adidas gets caught shelling out 6 figures to players, we just change the rules so they can pay a player $100,000 to use his likeness and name if he goes to one of the chosen few schools. This is a lot more complicated than just letting a player get a dime every time a shirt gets sold with his name and number on it. This would create a HUGE advantage for high-density population areas. More eyes and ears make the player's name and likeness a lot more valuable.

While it sounds like something good for the players, it would change the landscape of college basketball that it could destroy any comparisons to college games played before this happened.

I think it would need to be capped at an amount that would at least let more than a few schools compete. Otherwise it just becomes a bidding war for NBA minor league teams pretending to be D1 basketball teams.

I don't think a cap would do any good. Set the cap at $10k and the cheaters will just give another $10k under the table.

[Cdizzle]

I don't think a cap would do any good. Set the cap at $10k and the cheaters will just give another $10k under the table.

Yep. A cap already exists. It isn't being followed or enforced effectively.

Did the book about a mouse and a cookie go out of print 25 years ago or something?

[rjl]

WSU and the NCAA made a lot of money for FVV, Baker, Shamet and all the others playing professionally internationally. WSU didn't force any of them to come here. They didn't have to go to college. Go pro internationally straight out of high school. They wanted to go to the NCAA, because without it and the TV exposure, none of them are making money professionally. None of them were in a position out of high school to get paid. So they went to college, got better, got exposure and got paid.

Sounds like what college is for (not just athletically). Athletes need the NCAA exposure. They get free education, meals and travel to go along with it. Don't like it, choose pro ball or AAU.

I don't get why you and so many other people think that college athletes have to live in a vacuum where the normal laws don't apply. Anywhere else, you take a photo of someone, slap it on a t-shirt and sell it for money, and you've got to pay that person for the privilege. Anywhere else, you use a person's name and put it on a product, you've got to pay them for the privilege. Anywhere else, you take somebody's number, take their talents, traits, height, weight, age, ethnicity, and everything else about them, quantify those into numbers and shove those into a video game, you've got to pay them for the privilege. Put more plainly, anywhere else, you use someone's likeness and use it to make a buck, you've got to give that person a cut.

Yet somehow companies have been doing that for years with college athletes, and they've go to just grin and bear it because they're getting a "free education?" What the hell does an education have to do with it?

The California law isn't talking about schools paying kids to play; it's talking about making companies (and maybe the school licensing department) pay these kids for using their likeness to make a buck. The reality is the law is probably moreso going to put an end to the practice of marketing these products, except in a few select circumstances, because it's removing the loophole that increased the profit for the product marketer.

[mattdalt]

I don't get why you and so many other people think that college athletes have to live in a vacuum where the normal laws don't apply. Anywhere else, you take a photo of someone, slap it on a t-shirt and sell it for money, and you've got to pay that person for the privilege. Anywhere else, you use a person's name and put it on a product, you've got to pay them for the privilege. Anywhere else, you take somebody's number, take their talents, traits, height, weight, age, ethnicity, and everything else about them, quantify those into numbers and shove those into a video game, you've got to pay them for the privilege. Put more plainly, anywhere else, you use someone's likeness and use it to make a buck, you've got to give that person a cut.

Yet somehow companies have been doing that for years with college athletes, and they've go to just grin and bear it because they're getting a "free education?" What the hell does an education have to do with it?

The California law isn't talking about schools paying kids to play; it's talking about making companies (and maybe the school licensing department) pay these kids for using their likeness to make a buck. The reality is the law is probably moreso going to put an end to the practice of marketing these products, except in a few select circumstances, because it's removing the loophole that increased the profit for the product marketer.

The students don't agree to allow the university to use their image for marketing materials, as a condition for the scholarship? Or are you saying the universities have been illegally using the athletes' images without the athletes' consent?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

The students don't agree to allow the university to allow their image for marketing materials, as a condition for the scholarship? Or are you saying the universities have been illegally using the athletes' images?

Huh?